Different Day, Same Shit.

After months of following the Bitcoin saga, I still don't get what the big deal is about it. To me, it's cryptography willed into electronic currency by a bunch of people in search of a tech-driven way to fulfill libertarian principle while sticking it to the IRS and financial institutions everywhere. Meanwhile, Mt. Gox somehow went from trading Magic the Gathering gaming cards online to trading said electronic currency. It's all volatile as hell and if you weren't in it before everyone rushed in for a quick buck, you'll wind up spending thousands of dollars in equipment and utility costs just to extract a few hundred in e-coins that you can't even exchange for fiat currency properly.

So it was no surprise to me when the entire thing looked like it was going up in smoke. Bitcoin just seemed to have "ponzi scheme" written all over it.

And despite a number of people and stores taking Bitcoin, I highly doubt it's gonna be the wave of the future as far as currency's concerned, but then again, that's just the natural-born cynic in me.

As a side-note, Dogecoin is just downright adorable. So coin.

In 2008, the United Nations estimated America's total wealth, including human capital, at around $118 trillion. Dr. John Rutledge, economist and former Bush administration tax policy advisor, estimated the U.S. economy's total assets at $188 trillion. The World Bank tallied America's national wealth as of Q4 2011 at $57.4 trillion. Filmmaker and outspoken activist Michael Moore found that the total net worth of the Forbes 400 in 2009 was $1.27 trillion, while the bottom 60% of households held only $1.22 trillion of $53.15 trillion in calculated national wealth for 2009.

According to a study by G. William Domhoff of the University of California at Santa Cruz, 35.4 percent of all privately held wealth in the U.S. is in the hands of only 1 percent of the nation. The mean household financial wealth of that 1 percent was $15,171,600 in 2010.

The U.S. currently has $16 trillion of national debt. The nation's current GDP stands at nearly $15 trillion.

Why the numbers? Because whenever people hear that the U.S. is deep in debt, its $16 trillion of debt obligations are always juxtaposed with its current GDP. It's a nice parlor trick that makes the folks with thousands of dollars in credit card debt see U.S. debt in the same light as their own debt, thereby making them more sympathetic to neo-conservative prescriptions of fiscal austerity. Put that together with instances of wasteful spending and the appearance thereof in a number of government sectors and you have a ready-made argument for taking a chainsaw to programs perceived as wasteful and unnecessary.

However, there's a big difference between national debt and personal debt. Personal debt is personal debt to the average American, unless they're absolutely adroit at precariously juggling credit cards and loans for profit. Unlike most nations, they don't have the power to print currency, backed by their own full faith and credit, in hopes of satisfying debt obligations if need be. Nations use debt instruments to finance their growth, make investments in trusted, secure currencies and even rely on their own reputation and others' hope of long-term gain in exchange for overlooking short-term debt.

When the average American defaults on their debt, they're usually subject to devastating reductions in their personal credit score (which has an ever-growing importance on financial well-being, these days) in addition to wage garnishments and asset liquidation, unless they manage to get from under their debt via bankruptcy. Even then, it's usually a seven-year wait in the fiscal wilderness as they're practically barred from anything other than lending instruments offering usurious borrowing rates.

Things are a bit different for a nation facing a sovereign default:

Defaulting on sovereign debt can be more complicated than defaults on corporate debt because domestic assets cannot be seized to pay back funds. Rather, the terms of the debt will renegotiated, often leaving the lender in an unfavorable situation, if not an entire loss. The impact of the default can thus be significantly more far-reaching, both in terms of its impact on international markets and of its effect on the country's population. A government in default can easily become a government in chaos, which can be disastrous for other types of investment in the issuing country.

It's unlikely that the U.S. is so hard-up for money that it'll go the road of, say...Greece or perhaps Spain. Uncle Sam doesn't have to worry about harassing debt collection phone calls the same way the average American does.

On the other hand, Jerome Hudson, God bless him, is one of those folks who's firmly in the column of people who thinks Uncle Sam has good reason to keep his phone off the hook:

This is obviously a manufactured mantra. There are over sixteen trillion reasons why America is broke. We are a debtor nation. We blow through roughly seven million dollar every minute and about four hundred million dollars every hour. Heck, even the homeless person you pass on the street is in better financial shape than the country is because at least that guy is flat broke and doesn't owe a trillion dollars to the Bank of China.

A few weeks ago, Zimbabwe only had $212 to its name after paying all of its bills, so you'd presume they are in better shape than the U.S., right?

Come to think of it, the Bank of China would be hard-pressed to liquidate America's assets in the event of a default. Unlike someone who missed one too many car payments or skipped out on the Rent-to-Own bills, you just can't send in the repo man. Well, you could, but the consequences could be nasty. Threads-grade nasty.

Nevertheless, conservative leaders are hell-bent on perpetuating Hudson's narrative in hopes of convincing ordinary Americans to dispense with "expensive" social and financial safety nets and accept the prescribed privations of fiscal austerity as the new normal. The narrative sounds good to Americans who see their taxpayer dollars being spent on the wrong people and the wrong things. The push for fiscal austerity, in combination with the GOP's creative sabotage and obstruction of certain social programs, has left America's infrastructural, educational and social systems rotting on the vine.

In the meantime, the proceeds saved from that shared sacrifice aren't directed to things Americans actually need and appreciate - repaired roads and highway infrastructure, education funding, healthcare access, etc. Instead, the proceeds are funneled towards satisfying financial instruments that were largely the cause of America's current recession and obeying the constant demands of global business leaders for more tax breaks and greater monetary incentives.

It's no coincidence that the net worth of wealthy Americans has risen throughout the recession period. There's a quiet, yet noticeable transfer of wealth going on, where ordinary Americans are expected to hollow themselves out and willingly resign themselves to a lower quality of life, only to see what little wealth absorbed by parasitic financial instruments and gifted to a select few "captains of industry." This is deemed proper and fitting and besides, you should have worked harder if you don't like seeing CEOs enjoy filet mignon while you figure out the best way to make the most of your Spam and ramen noodle dinner.

America only has a spending problem in the eyes of conservatives and the investor/rentier class. In their view, America is spending its money on the wrong things (social programs, infrastructure, minimum wage, access to healthcare, a financial safety net in old age, etc.) and not enough money on the correct things (defense, tax breaks, financial rewards for the investor/rentier/industry captain class). The narrative will continue long after Americans accept a complete lack of healthcare, poverty in old age and little to no opportunity for socioeconomic mobility as their new reality.

We only consider the country in debt because we are constantly being told it is, which will make the upcoming sequestration in March a sight to behold. At this rate, we'll keep carving ourselves up until there's nothing left to carve up, all because the conservatives and the investor/rentier class demand it of us.

“This president’s misguided policies have seem muddled, confused and simply ineffective,” said Romney, speaking at the minority-run Production Products, a military contractor that manufactures shelters to shield from chemical and biological attacks, among others.

“When you look around at America’s economy, three-and-a-half years into this presidency, it’s painfully obvious that this inexperienced president with no experience as a leader was simply not up to the task of solving a great economic crisis,” said Romney. “This is not just a failure of policy; it is a moral failure of tragic proportion. Our government has a moral commitment to help every American help himself. And that commitment has been broken.”

“I will not be that president of doubt and deception,” said Romney. “I will lead us to a better place.’

It's safe to say that just about everything that comes out of Mitt Romney's mouth is a lie. If this man had Pinocchio's nose, it would have traversed the entire globe by now. The tip end is currently hurling along a crash course towards the man's own asshole. Nevertheless, a large swath of Americans are prone to inhaling this hot air with generous gulps, so it's dangerous to sit by and believe that your fellow Americans will see through this BS. Chances are, they won't.

The lovely Angry Black Lady breaks down Romney's latest ploy of deceptive politics with cold, hard facts:

•  The private sector has been adding jobs steadily since the end of Obama’s first year, and today there are more private sector jobs than there were before Obama took office.

• The public sector, on the other hand, has fallen off a cliff: Total government employment is far below where it was when Obama started office.

• Excluding federal government workers, the decline in government employment is downright disastrous.

•  State and local spending levels are at an all-time low.

• Education workers are a huge contributor to the decline in local employment.

• President Obama’s stimulus helped for a while, but it wasn’t enough.

• Also: school construction spending is on the decline, spending on roads is down, public sector spending on public safety (firefighters and police) has collapsed, and public construction on the water supply is way down.

The GOP is doing all it can to bring about economic and social ruin. It's like a contractor who takes a sledgehammer to your roof and when it starts pouring rain, points at the holes he's made and says "There!! That's why you need me to patch this mess up!" The GOP is doing the same thing to education, healthcare, Social Security and other government programs, under the assumption that people will vote in the very folks who were busy destroying these programs (and the jobs and benefits they provide) to save them.

The GOP also has a pathological tendency to project their own failures onto the president, in hopes that if people start believing this "big lie," they'll either grow disenchanted with the president and not vote or start voting Republican. Mitt Romney is simply capitalizing on the GOP's rampant projection of failure and obstruction. He has to, otherwise people will realize there are no other redeeming qualities that make him worthy of the presidency.

Speaking of moral failures, Mittens should ask himself why he faked his way into being in uniform, yet avoided a chance to wear it for real.

Look, Mitt Romney made a mistake ever talking about the fact that he created 100,000 jobs. Bain Capital’s responsibility was not to create 100,000 jobs or some other number. It was to make profits for his investors, most of whom were pension funds, endowments, and foundations. and it did it superbly, acting within the rules and very responsibly and was a leading firm.

Sometimes you have to stand back and carefully read between the lines. If Think Progress hadn't brought up the following, I never would have noticed:

Technically, of course, Ratter is right — companies’ only legal obligation is to create value for their owners. But as Rattner notes, Romney has built his campaign on claiming that Bain was actually some kind of altruistic job creation machine. Just this morning, Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul said, “Mitt Romney helped create more jobs in his private sector experience and more jobs as Governor of Massachusetts than President Obama has for the entire nation.”

By acknowledging that “Bain Capital’s responsibility was never to create…jobs,” Ratter is unwittingly endorsing the entire message of the Obama campaign ads, which is that Bain prioritized profits for it wealthy owners over jobs and pensions for its middle-class employees.

Unwittingly? I don't think guys like Rattner got where they are by making gaffes. Then again, how does that explain guys like Romney, Santorum and the junior Shrub? If it was intentional, the message may have been a bit too subtle for the low information set. Think about it: if the venture capital firm's goal was only to make investors money, then how can Mitt Romney stand on his claim of creating 100,000 jobs? At least that's what's being subtly hinted.

Conservatives will counter that by stating how CEOs are just as responsible for job gains as they are for returns on the investment. Romney has as much claim to those 100,000 jobs as he does to his $100 million gain from loading a $5 million investment with $400 million in debt. I wonder if that means he's just as culpable for those job losses...

Apparently not, as conservatives already found a patsy they could use to redirect the heat from Romney:

Here’s what the Obama Web video doesn’t mention: A top Obama donor and fundraiser had a much more direct tie to the controversy and actually served on the board of directors at Richardson, Texas-based Ampad, which makes office paper products.

Jonathan Lavine is a long-time Bain Capital executive and co-owner of the Boston Celtics. He is also one of President Obama’s most prolific fundraisers. He has already raised more than $200,000 for the Obama campaign this election, according to Federal Election Commission records.

Lavine started working for Bain in 1993. He was one of three Bain executives who served on the board of directors of Ampad for several years, a post he held until 1999. Here’s a news release announcing his departure from the company in April 1999.

Lavine’s placement on the board of Ampad suggests he had a more direct role than Romney in the series of events surrounding the layoffs, labor disputes and eventual bankruptcy of the Marion, Ind., factory featured in the Obama campaign video.

Asked about Mr. Lavine’s role, Obama campaign spokesman Ben Labolt put the focus back on Romney.

“No one aside from Mitt Romney is running for president highlighting their tenure as a corporate buyout specialist as one of job creation,” Labolt said. “The president has support from business leaders across industries who have seen him pull the economy back from the brink of another depression”.

And, Labolt argued, Romney, as the CEO of Bain, would have been the one ultimately responsible for what happened with Ampad.

“He made profit at any cost for himself and his partners by outsourcing jobs and bankrupting companies,” Labolt said. “From buyout to bankruptcy, Mitt Romney was CEO and sole owner of Bain. The managing director working on Ampad reported directly to him and has said Romney could have ordered him to settle with the union but didn’t.”

The CEO is ultimately responsible for the operations of the entire company. In other words, the buck stops with him. Except if said CEO wants to pass the buck to an unwitting subordinate. Mitt can't fire Lavine at this point, but he can try to have him stand in for the tarring and feathering. Quite a few people have already taken the bait.

When whites catch a cold in America, blacks catch pneumonia.

The American economy's been under the weather for the past two to three years. At the same time, black Americans faced record levels of unemployment. So the following should be good news for everyone, right?

The U.S. unemployment rate fell last month to its lowest level in more than two and a half years as employers stepped up hiring in response to the slowly improving economy.
The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate dropped to 8.6 percent last month from 9 percent in October. The rate hasn't been that low since March 2009, during the depths of the recession.

That's good news, right? Read on.

However, unemployment ticked up amongst African-Americans up from 15.1 to 15.5 percent and black teen joblessness also went up from 37.8 to 39.6, after three straight months of drops.

But it's not all good news for Americans in general:

Still, 13.3 million Americans remain unemployed. And a key reason the unemployment rate fell so much was because roughly 315,000 people had given up looking for work and were no longer counted as unemployed.

So the real reason behind the lower unemployment numbers was scores of people giving up any hope of finding any sort of employment, or finding alternative forms of employment that wouldn't necessarily be counted in the stats (i.e. freelancing).

Meanwhile, the unemployment rate in black communities remains double of what whites face. When America comes down with pneumonia, black Americans come down with West Nile virus.

I can imagine Newton Leroy Gingrich taking a look at these statistics and coming to the conclusion that this validates blacks as being "lazy" and otherwise unmotivated to do anything that doesn't involve slinging drugs or stealing televisions. You know how Leroy and his people can get.

It's not everyday that I dig around a website that is largely geared towards celebrating the birth of white English occupation of what would eventually be known as America and the existence of its white American offspring (to the everlasting detriment of native residents). But while working on the last post about Elizabeth Wright, one of the links featured on another blog led me to a story on Johnathan Tilove and Michael Falco's book, "Along Martin Luther King: Travels on Black America's Main Street." The book was intended as a portrait of black American life and culture along streets often renamed after the famous Civil Rights activist. The blog's review sidewinds into a hit piece on a religious figure and a brief musing on how black Americans are being squeezed out by a growing Latino population and gentrification caused by developers in search of young, affluent paying customers. The old chestnut was that only streets in the poor, worse-off neighborhoods were named after MLK, Jr.

The only aspect of the blog posting that stood out was a brief comment about kin solidarity:

But the big chains are latecomers to the process of crowding out black shopkeepers. They were pushed aside years ago by immigrants from patriarchal cultures, such as Greece or Korea, where the senior male can compel his entire extended family to toil diligently in the clan's store or restaurant.

African-Americans, by comparison, tend to lack the kin solidarity needed to prosper in small business. Big corporations with carefully worked out procedures offer ambitious individual blacks a surer road up the ladder.

It's a "blind squirrel finds acorn" moment.

Kin solidarity is something that is sorely lacking in the black American community. Other nationalities and ethnic groups seem to have no issue with helping build generational wealth by having the entire extended family cultivate and grow a business. Those who participate often leave with the skills needed to manage their own businesses or, at the very least, have a solid financial backing for other endeavors. It's something I've seen in Carib and African families, but not necessary in our own.

Instead, most black Americans would rather strike out on their own or rather take their chances climbing the ladder in already established corporate outlets. For the most part, we often stay separate from our extended family unless family reunions, funerals and other such events bring the family back together. It's a very individualistic streak that black Americans have taken to heart, as though that's how things are supposed to be.

I hate to pin the blame on slavery, but it's where blame is going. The lack of family cohesion thanks to the omnipresent threat of being separated and sold to persons unknown and shipped to parts unknown promoted a subconscious streak of kin independence out of sheer necessity, because you never knew when those family bonds would be severed for good. Other cultures never had to deal with that particular generational trauma, and it's something that has to be slowly but surely deprogrammed from our subconscious being if we want to practice any form of kin solidarity. It's a big step along the road of consolidating our own economic independence from the rest of America.

You had legislation reaffirming that “In God We Trust” is our motto? That’s not putting people back to work. I trust in God, but God wants to see us help ourselves by putting people back to work.

Sorry, Mr. President. The GOP-led legislature has better things to do than make jobs for unemployed Americans. In fact, they'd rather not see a single job created until your black ass is thrown out of the Oval Office come January 20, 2013. Besides, brushing up their "pious asshole" credentials by reaffirming "In God We Trust" as the official U.S. motto. "Separation of Church and State" means nothing to a bunch of folks angling for a "Christian nation" or such other nonsense.

Seriously, "E pluribus unum" sounds much better and also avoids that whole "Separation of Church and State" business. Besides, the president thought it was cool. Maybe that's what got all the pious assholes in the House all upset:

As evidence of this "disturbing trend," Forbes pointed to the fact that in a 2010 speech in Indonesia, President Obama called the phrase "E pluribus unum" the nation's motto. He also pointed to the dispute over the use of the phrase "in God we trust" in the relatively new visitors center at the Capitol Building.

Meanwhile, the Obama White House has its hands full with pushing the jobs bill through. Congress is allowing choice bits and pieces to go through, but any hope of the whole hog coming through died in the Senate.

The GOP seems more interested in thumping bibles, guaranteeing corporate wealth, preserving the sanctity of life until it manages to leave the womb and regulating how females handle their own reproductive organs. Oh, and sandbagging the economy so your black ass can look bad and lose on November 4, 2012. The next time the GOP and conservatives say they want to "help" America, take a look at the above and ask yourself, "is this the kind of 'help' I should expect from these people?"

The nature of anonymous trolls make it so when there's more than one person making the same or similar point to the troll, chances are that person is a second account made by the same troll. In following one of these troll's YouTube video, I stumbled on the following comment:

@lmdslam republicans and democrats both suck. the new TEA party types are the best answer for us now. Small federal government, less taxation, fewer regulations, strong military.

The above comes from YouTube user "1Makyo". So why focus on boilerplate Teabagger script from some run-of-the-mill YouTube denizen?

Simple.

"Small federal government, less taxation, fewer regulations, strong military."

Let's break this down. In order for the United States to maintain its overgrown yet strong (in most respects) military in 63 countries, with over 250,000 military personnel and countless support staff, including contractors, the U.S. spends over $700 billion per year. That's more than other countries spend on their military forces combined. In contrast, China spends barely over $100 billion on their military.

Now that requires a pretty beefy federal government that's doing a fair bit of taxation. On the other hand, the small federal government desired by the Tea Party wouldn't be able to swing these types of expenditures. At best, the U.S. would have no choice but to cut the military aid, pack up the troops and send them home, and then shut down and gut the bases they were in. America's priority would suddenly shift to homeland defense. No more bodies coming from Iraq and Afghanistan. Cue the border wall between the U.S. and Mexico that the Tea Party wants.

The main problem with that is it will kick America's geopolitical chessboard from under it, and all of the carefully planned chess moves that involved military aid, interventions, counterterrorist works and plain old show of force will be for naught. Neocons will weep in anguish. If the U.S. wants to continue projecting force, something's gonna have to give.

The second problem comes from the taxation end. Given the wealthy and multinational corporations will be the most reluctant to pay their fair share in taxes (or believe what they're paying now is their fair share), the bulk of the tax burden will fall on the usual suspects -- the middle classes and the working poor. The whole idea of activating the "trickle-down effect" to spur consumer spending by relieving the "tax burden" from the wealthy and large businesses fell apart before America's very eyes during most of this year.

All of those tax cuts should have translated into spend-happy businesses and wealthy folk who hired more people and spend more money on more things just for the sake of spending, which should have translated into dollars trickling down from above and into the pockets of ordinary Joe Schmoes. Instead, the recession proved to companies that they could fire half of their workforce, force the other half to work twice as hard, and use the savings from firing the "dead weight" and their tax cuts to give their CEOs performance bonuses and better pay, while sitting on the rest of the money.

Now, how do you expect to fund your overgrown yet strong military if you have to rely largely on an exhausted tax base that is punitively hit with regressive taxes at every turn? Well, the U.S. military could start relying on corporate sponsorship as a way to shore up those funds. Businesses donated to the NYPD to shore up their operating costs during Occupy Wall Street, so there's nothing to stop them from throwing a few bones to the Army or Air Force every once in a while, in exchange for certain services...

You could also push a flat tax akin to Herman Cain's old "9-9-9" or new "9-0-9" tax scheme. And since "half of Americans don't pay taxes," all you have to do is to make them pay by getting rid of certain deductions and credits! Say goodbye to the EIC and Making Work Pay. Of course, this may drive some to partake more heavily in welfare/assistance programs, but you can kick them off the rolls just as well, if those programs even exist anymore. But that still takes a pretty big federal government to pull off.

In the Tea Party-governed world of 1Makyo, the concept of "small federal government" is applied everywhere except the military, while it also receives private bankrolling from corporate sources, in exchange for playing mercenary whenever there's a natural resource that needs securing. As far as "fewer regulations" go, all you have to do is march backwards in time to see the environmental, commercial and health-related damages that will ensue.

Hmm...sounds like business as usual. Perhaps the Teabaggers aren't up for the whole "small federal government, less taxation, fewer regulations, strong military" theme, after all.

The most notable aspect of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it didn't come pre-approved from the loins of mainstream media. It didn't seek permission from the scions of print and television media or wait for the online pundits to bestow blessings upon it. There wasn't any need for protesters to patiently wait their turn until "Very Serious People" decided the movement was worth bothering themselves with, if at all. It took a while for the MSM to finally take full notice of Occupy Wall Street, whether they really wanted to or not.

Yet there are those out there who are still keen on dismissing OWS outright, as though it were some sort of aberration among the masses that fails to reflect upon the rest of America, despite how Americans across the country are standing in solidarity with their brethren in Zuccotti Park. Apparently, David Brooks of the New York Times feels this way about the movement.

Similarly, if you look only at the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements that have been getting so much coverage in the news media, you know very little about the wider America. Most Americans seem to understand this. According to data from the Pew Research Center, they are paying less attention to the Occupy Wall Street movement than any other major story — less than Afghanistan, Amanda Knox, the 2012 election, the death of Steve Jobs and far, far less than news about the economy.

This, despite the amount of solidarity shown across the nation. The above isn't an accurate reflection of the news stories Americans believe are important to them, so much as it's a telling reflection of what Brooks and other "Very Serious People" believe should be worthy of America's collective attention.

Quietly and untelegenically, Americans are trying to repair their economic values.

There's more than one way to dismiss OWS. In this instance, all one has to do is separate the protesters from "ordinary Americans" who are piecing together their shattered financial security, then contrast the "camera-hungry" protesters against other Americans who are "quietly working" behind the scenes. Al-Jazeera, the news outlet that conservatives and "Very Serious People" wanted Americans to dismiss throughout the War on Terror, has a great piece on how the media marginalizes dissenting movements such as OWS.

America went through a similar values restoration in the 1820s. Then, too, people sensed that the country had grown soft and decadent. Then, too, Americans rebalanced. They did it quietly and in private.

The main point driven home is Occupy Wall Street's lack of necessity when it comes to rebuilding the country's shattered finances, as it will be done by ordinary Americans who will surely pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get back to work. Brooks goes so far as to pat Americans on the back for disavowing credit cards and debt without realizing how many Americans had to rely on debt instruments just to survive, and without realizing that being flat busted broke is the biggest reason Americans are ditching credit cards in the first place.

No mention is ever made about the financial sector playing a role in America's economic meltdown or how it encouraged the finance of expensive lifestyles with dubious debt instruments. The role of corporations in shedding jobs as a method of inflating their own worth and executive bonuses goes unmentioned. As far as Brooks and other "Very Serious People" are concerned, these entities weren't responsible for the current economic crisis, therefore such discussions aren't necessary. Instead, fault lies with ordinary Americans who should have known better and a government that constantly gets in the way of "job creators."

The "Very Serious People" are vexed how OWS continues to stand outside of "Serious" influence and ignore "Serious" advice given by "Very Serious" pundits and opinion-makers, most of whom themselves are ridiculously disconnected from the lives and ordeals of ordinary Americans. Brooks himself probably wonders at times why the rabble in Zuccotti Park couldn't just stop being such mindless hippies and piss off elsewhere, so the "Very Serious People" can once again represent America's clearing house of great minds when it comes to solving America's most pressing issues.

Occupy Wall Street represents a method of bringing important issues to light without relying on mainstream media to green-light their voice and without seeing the media repackage said voice for further acceptability among center-right and conservative interests. Not being able to role-play as the arbiters of the angered American voice scares guys like Brooks, because otherwise they'd be paid hacks consigned to the margins of genuine American free speech and political action.

I watched the GOP economic debate on a Bloomberg stream earlier tonight. If you want to know how I felt about it, look at my Twitter posts, because I'm not about to go into detail about it again. Next time, I'll create a nice little tag to keep everything in one place. Honest.

Poor Herman Cain really thought it was his time to shine. Too bad the GOP establishment (the Powers That Be™) already have their hearts set on Mitt Romney, nevermind if he practices some goofy Utah cult religion. The rest of the nation will just have to learn to live with it, even Alabama.

Redeye didn't like Herman Cain's softshoe routine any more than I did. Neither did Dr. Boyce Watkins. To sum things up, they both see Herman Cain as the perfect "get out of being/seeming racist" card for white conservatives. Herman Cain: The Ultimate Racial Grievance Neutralizer™.

- How come when protesters threaten violence or even broach the mere appearance of becoming violent, it is considered to be a fucking tragedy of epic proportions worthy of martial law and swift crackdowns by law enforcement, but when a conservative mentions running over a few protesters with his car, "well, he didn't mean nothing by it" or "come'on, it's just a joke! Can't you take a little joke?"

In the conservative world, threatening to kill someone because their political ideology is different than yours is regarded as "a harmless joke." But someone who merely considers doing or saying anything that could possibly harm conservatives in any way is fair game for the most brutal state sanctioned punishment available.

- Arch-villain Skeletor, currently in a meat-and-skin-covered form he calls "Rick Scott," wants college kids in the state of Florida to forget about all that nonsense about getting a useless liberal arts degree and instead knuckle down and go for a "STEM" degree: degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Nothing wrong with expressing his preferences, except he plans to fuck liberal arts majors over by pulling the rug on the funding received by liberal arts and social science sections at Florida's public universities. After all, if you want to chase a useless degree in Anthropology or Philosophy, you might as well do it at a private institution and rack up over a $100k in non-dischargeable student loans.

If this is touted as a "money-saving measure," shouldn't they look at the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on their athletics programs? Of course not. Monetary pursuits that reward a chosen few but placate millions are not to be trifled with.

- Speaking of student loans, people are wondering whether we should forgive a large portion of student loans and mortgages currently held by millions of Americans. Of course, the lending and banking industry would just die if they didn't have all of that debt to hold over America's heads, so expect that idea to be a no-go for the foreseeable future.

Unless, of course, everyone simultaneously defaults on their student loans. *cue evil laughter*

- A young man follows his dreams in Romania, only for his life to be cut short in a barroom brawl over a woman. My heart goes out to Chauncey Hardy's family and friends, who are surely in some deep, deep pain over what happened.

- On the other hand, two heffers were hauled in for hauling off and going ham on one another with a heavy helping of household bleach and ammonia at Wal-Mart. And this is one of the many reasons I prefer shopping at Target. It's a bit more expensive, but at least you don't have two women slinging "American Value"-brand bleach all over each other and 19 other people.

BTW, mixing bleach and ammonia together makes chlorine gas. Chlorine gas is potentially fatal. Just thought you all should know.

- President Obama's "American Jobs Act of 2011" died an ignoble death in the Senate today, 50 to 49. 60 votes were needed, but he couldn't get them from his own damned party. Read as Patricia Murphy at MSNBC's Powerwall orgasms over how this setback is proof positive of Obama's weakness in Washington. Keep this crap up and the various "Villagers" and "emoprogs" will get their secret wish: to have a Republican in the Oval Office for the next 4 to 16 years. That way, they can play perpetual pretend underdog crusaders again while taking GOP "danegeld" because "they have no choice but to." Better to have pocket change to go cruising the cocktail dinner circuit with.

This reminds me of combat vets who cruise the local bars with a batch of shiny medals and a story to spin for each one, to impress the young bunnies and jaded ex-wives. And they get them by deliberately flinging themselves into combat scenarios, whether it actually helps their platoon or not.

- Is this how true Christians are supposed to behave? I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't approve -- John 8:7 and Matthew 7:1 is clear proof. Then again, most people who call themselves "Christians" only read bits and pieces of the Old Testament and only the juicy portions that validate their own bigotry and bloodlust:

But who could imagine the hate and rage that would motivate a Pastor to instruct deacons and members of his congregation, Grace Fellowship Church in Fruitland, TN. to physically attack a couple arriving in the church parking lot last Wednesday?

The fact that one of the gay men attacked happened to be the Pastor’s own son, Jerry Pittman, Jr., no doubt contributed to Pittman senior’s noxious edict. According to Pittman Jr., after hearing his Dad yell, “SICK’EM!:”

“My uncle and two other deacons came over to the car per my dad’s request. My uncle smashed me in the door as the other deacon knocked my boyfriend back so he couldn’t help me, punching him in his face and his chest. The other deacon came and hit me through my car window in my back.”

The attackers also verbally assaulted the couple continually with anti-gay verbiage which continued even after a Sheriff’s Deputy arrived on the scene. Bystanders and other congregants made no effort to stop the assault. For that matter, neither did the Deputy Sheriff. Once the barrage of punches ended, the Deputy refused to let the two victims press charges.

Officers of the law may have a sworn duty to protect innocent citizens, but they're not obligated to uphold that promise. Really, it makes them no different than the highwaymen of old or the enforcers found in various dictatorial regimes.

BTW, if the so-called "Christians" were to see Jesus once more, they may try to beat and crucify him again. It's probably why when he promised to come back, he'd only do so when it was time for Judgement. Seems like these folks only respond favorably to the wrath of God, which sucks for the most part. Oh well, Judgement Day's a'comin.

- Detroit police officer Joseph Weekley was finally arraigned on charges stemming from the murder of Aiyana Stanley-Jones in a botched police raid.

Weekley is a 14-year veteran who had been a member of the department’s Special Response Team (SRT) since 2004. He reportedly told his sergeant moments after the shooting, “A woman inside grabbed my gun. It fired. The bullet hit a child.”

But the Stanley-Jones family lawyer Geoffrey Fieger told the Detroit Free Press he was shown a video immediately after the shooting that shows police as the aggressors. The video in question has not been found was reportedly not investigated by police.

“All I know is that the [missing] video is pretty dramatic,” he said. “You can see the gunman shooting into the house from the outside.”

The video that police have “is very different,” he said. “It doesn’t show a thing.”

Chances are his eventual sentence will be light, if he's sentenced at all. Juries have a thing for exonerating officers of the law.

I hate to end this blog post on a bitter note, but it is what it is.

With a buying power of nearly $1 trillion annually, if African-Americans were a country, they'd be the 16th largest country in the world.

The number of African-American households earning $75,000 or higher grew by almost 64%, a rate close to 12% greater than the change in the overall population's earning between 2000 and 2009. This continued growth in affluence, social influence and household income will continue to impact the community's economic power.

African-Americans make more shopping trips than all other groups, but spend less money per trip. African-Americans in higher income brackets, also spend 300% more in higher-end retail grocers more than any other high income household.

Black people have no idea how much economic power they wield and how they can literally shape this country's trajectory by putting it to good use. One of the most depressing observations I've made concerning black folks' spending habits is how we, as a community and as a people, tend not to support our own centers of economic activity to the extent we support others. Black-owned and operated businesses are few and far between, and they often don't last long for both a lack of support and this odd expectation that instead of conducting business/consumer translations like others, we deserve "the hookup" based on ethnic kinship. What's left are Arab and Indian-owned "quik-marts," Korean hair supply shops, fast-food joints with black staffing but non-black ownership and the ubiquitous title loan shops run by whites.

We also suffer from a bit of the "white man's ice is colder" thought pattern, leading us to believe that our own entrepreneurial efforts are not good enough and only the products and services rendered by other people are good, in a sense. It's something that will likely take a generation or more of positive reinforcement and mindset change to undo.

Generally speaking, instead of spending our hard-earned dollars with other people, where seeing the returns from such economic activity back to our communities is a faint and distance chance, why not start our own businesses and spend with our own people? That way, we can reinvest in our own communities, instead of relying on others to return the money we've given them in consumer transactions in the form of positive socioeconomic improvements.

The whole concept of the "just-world hypothesis" is interesting. It's essentially a coping mechanism that shields people away from the feeling of overall vulnerability, in order to maintain the mystique that you're in control of your own affairs and that you and yours aren't susceptible to the slings and arrows that seem to plague others. Whether it's poverty, discrimination, sexual assault or even death, if you can believe that those are things that happen to other people for some reason that they could control, you won't feel so vulnerable.

The economy is still circling the shitter, for all intents and purposes, and with the growing number of unemployed and the domino effect unemployment has on people's finances and social lives, it's no wonder the just-world hypothesis is catching on with people who don't want to see what's happening to their fellow Americans happen to them and theirs.

That could explain the following. Or perhaps it's just a case of Michigan Republicans being assholes, again:

An undetermined number of Michigan's nearly 2 million food assistance recipients will lose the help under new eligibility requirements the state will begin using in October.

Michigan has determined food assistance eligibility based only on income for roughly a decade. A new policy will include a review of certain financial assets starting Oct 1. The requirements will affect new applicants right away and existing recipients when their cases come up for review, which typically happens once every six months.

Those with assets of more than $5,000 in bank accounts or some types of property would no longer be eligible for food assistance. Other assets that would count against the cap include vehicles with market values of more than $15,000 and second homes, depending on how much is owed on the properties.

Apparently this is Michigan governor Rick Snyder's attempt to get those freeloading Cadillac-driving welfare queens off the public assistance rolls. For those who're already living on the bleeding edge of poverty or somewhere close to it, it's not gonna affect them much. These people thrive on paid-for beaters worth $500 to $2000, dream about owning second homes and the only time they'll have more than $5k in the bank is during tax season.

But this is gonna suck for those once-well-off middle class families who fell on hard times and need a helping hand, as opposed to a boot to the face. Unless you're willing to sell off your car and other assets, and then drain away your bank account, you're out of luck as far as the Rickster is concerned. If you have $5k in the bank, then you don't need food stamps until you've run through that $5k feeding yourself and your family. Then and only then will you become worthy enough to be blessed with a helping hand from a government that would rather not lend one.

And conservatives will go along with this. Combine the just-world hypothesis with America's unique Puritanical views on poverty and sense of achievement, and you have a situation where being poor is seen as a moral defect in which the poor are perfectly capable of controlling at their leisure. In fact, poverty is sometimes seen as a leisure activity, with the poor being "lazy" and whatnot. Sometimes I get the feeling these folks actually think the poor enjoy being in poverty.

For those deep in the just-world hypothesis shit, if you can wail on those poors with austerity-minded legislation that instead transfers wealth under your dull noses and into the bank accounts and investment portfolios of your "betters" (the ones whom deserve all of your praise, with wealth equaling smarts and ambition and drive and whatnot), then you can keep on feeling somewhat impervious while satisfying the bitter asshole that lies in just about every person on Earth.

Some assets, such as primary residences and 401k accounts, would not be considered for determining food assistance eligibility.

Gee, well isn't that swell. Most people can tell you the value of their 401k accounts with only one hand, at best. If they're lucky to have a 401k. I guess the 30,000 college students who were recently kicked off the food stamp rolls wished they had 401k accounts. The ones that actually do happen to be legacy students in Ivy League institutions.

Food assistance benefits came under some scrutiny earlier this year when it was revealed a Michigan man had continued to get food aid from the state despite winning a $2 million lottery jackpot.*

There are a number of people out there who believe if the government's dumb enough to give out "freebies," they're gonna take the government for all they can. Outside the financial and military contracting sectors, this particular philosophy isn't all that it's cracked up to be. But it's like the fine folks in Texas who took away those last meals from death row inmates on account of one stubborn fella -- it's any excuse to bring the hammer down on everyone for the transgressions of a select few.

*To be perfectly honest, $2 million isn't a whole lot of money, especially if that amount happened to be pre-tax. No wonder that person stayed on food stamps.

The last time I worked for anyone "for free" was back in college, when I was fulfilling my internship requirements at the university's public relations department. Even then it wasn't necessarily "free" - in exchange for an extra helping hand and a number of professionally-made promotional pieces, I received the necessary credits needed to move on in my undergraduate career. The "Georgia Works" program resembles something of the sort, but there are a few things that made it stand out to me.

The program "works" like this: if you're a currently unemployed individual drawing benefits from the state, you have to undergo "workforce training." To fulfill this requirement, you spend up to eight weeks with a willing employer participating in the program. You get to "show your stuff" to what could be your future bosses and fulfill the "workforce training" bit. The employer gets eight weeks of "free labor" from the state, with no obligation to hire anyone from the program. If they do, they save time and money on training. The "intern" still draws unemployment benefits and receives a $240 stipend for transportation, child care, etc,. It's unclear whether that's $240/week or just $240 for the entire period, period.

The reason it stood out to me was because it smacked of "free labor," in the sense that participating employers enjoy what is essentially "free labor" - they don't have to pay these people because the state is taking care of that for them. No benefits, either, unless you consider Medicaid/Medicare one. And when the period is over, the employer has the luxury of dismissing their "intern" for a fresh face and another eight weeks of "free labor." Granted the "intern" can only work under 24 hours per week, but if there was a way to increase the number of required hours per week, you can bet your bottom dollar they would be increased.

"Georgia Works" seems like a win-win situation, except:

• Job seekers are tied down with a single potential employer for up to eight weeks, when they could be spending their time applying for multiple employers for an increased chance of landing a job.
• Job seekers are still "working" for peanuts -- those unemployment checks are not as glamorous as the hardened Teabagger conservative makes them out to be. Compared to a genuine job with a paycheck and benefits, they're still barely getting by.
• Single-parents are once again burdened the most by the program -- it's the hassle of locating and securing daycare arrangements for their kids that makes this program a bitter pill to swallow, and a $240 stipend doesn't go that far when it comes to child care.

The national economy is still suffering from a failure of balance. Attempts are on-going to make banks and other major players within the financial sector "whole" with billions upon billions of dollars in financial aid. Meanwhile, most Americans find themselves unable to cover a $1000 emergency if need be. Profits are going up while wages and benefits are going down. This is becoming less of a failure of balance and more of one end of the balance scale being cut off with a pair of bolt cutters.

The blame could be laid directly at the feet of the bankers and the government, but more than enough's been done on that end by so many others that it would just feel like an effort in duplication, if not outright plagiarism. Instead, focus will shift onto the average Dick and Janes of America, most of whom seen the economic damage done by a highly unregulated and insanely well-heeled force and perhaps felt it first hand, but can't quite or don't want to comprehend the need for outright revulsion against it.

"Outright revulsion?" No, it's not some commie/socialist/marxist tactic that exhorts equal redistribution of income according to one's need or such tripe. There are a vast number of Americans who can get pissed off at a multi-faceted corporate entity for taking their money, but go doe-eyed the moment they see the CEO driving the latest Reventon or living it up on the yacht with models in tow. This is very much the country of MTV's "Cribs" and "Real Housewives," where people live vicariously through the voyeuristic displays of other people's wealth. Americans may hate their banks, but they still love their money.

Most Americans are not only star-struck and doe-eyed by the wealthy and the trappings of their wealth, but they also see themselves as being wealthy one day. As such, they want all the advantages and breaks bestowed upon the current wealthy to remain in place for when they, the average Dicks and Janes, eventually arrive, if they ever. Of course, they never do, as the wealthy are wont to make sure no one else gets a chance to climb the ladders of extraordinary success.

Meanwhile, average Dick and Jane are too exhausted from working 50 to 80 hour work weeks for a declining salary/wage and little to no benefits to comprehend any of this. They're too busy wondering how to stretch their budgets to cover ever-increasing bills and ever-rising costs of ordinary food and household items to give this any thought. Spending hours on Facebook or plopping themselves down on the couch for 30 to 45 minute respites from their immediate reality saves them from dwelling on how well they're being fucked by groups of people who could care less about their overall well being.

In the end, you really can't get rid of the "soon, I too shall be among ye" mentality most Americans share when attempting to commiserate with the wealthy unless there is either an immediate pain or a long, drawn out process that slowly beats or breeds this attitude out of them. The former is a great depression that finally hits enough Americans in the wallet for them to illicit immediate correction of their current circumstances or else. The latter involves Americans spending three or more generations under an aristocratic oligarchy, where all of the avenues for the average Dick and Jane "striking it rich" are coldly and cruelly cut off, full stop. It's a world where the only wealth floating around will be generational wealth at the hands of the new gilded class and corporate wealth at the hands of multinational corporate concerns. Sadly, the small business owner, a.k.a. "merchant class" will still ignore reminders that he'll never be fit to be a part of the wealthy. At least he'll still be wealthier than his utterly impoverished contemporaries, which gives him a nice big punching bag to wail on out of arrogance and vanity.

In my personal opinion, the worst thing George W. Bush did during his attempts to sooth the national shock of 9/11 was to tell ordinary Americans to "go shopping." From that moment on, consumerism became the balm that soothed the nation's wounds, aside from always being a reason for being as far as many Americans were concerned -- it's been that way ever since the late 1940s. In a race to achieve that dream of "arriving," many Americans tried to "arrive" on credit -- it's how you get "$30k millionaires" living in mass-produced $700k houses bought with $0-down robo-signed mortgages, driving $50k Corvettes and taking vacations financed by adding another $200k worth of debt on top of the mortgage. Not enough people understood that many of the wealthy got where they are today either with ruthless business dealings, careful and calculated long-term investing or a flat-out inheritance. Trying to "arrive" on credit only results in your card being declined at the swanky restaurant, to your unending embarrassment.

I'm not here to place all of the blame on ordinary Americans for this current financial clusterfuck, but to highlight some of the attitudes that played a part in bringing us to where we are.

As an aside, a lot of the debt problems people are being faced with should be solved with debt forgiveness, if only to prevent the reappearance of generational debt and the looming possibility of debtor's prisons and bonded labor being implemented to recoup unpaid debts alongside garnishments. Corporations wouldn't mind seeing debt criminalized if it meant a swift and effective way of pressuring people into working themselves to death to pay back their debts, and a way to gain access to extremely low cost labor via prison labor without having to depend on today's criminal statues. Most people in this country aren't criminals right now, but with the criminalization of debt...

Student loans are a pet peeve of mine, if only the fact I'm paying mine off at this moment. Many will argue that changing the non-dischargeable nature of student loans will open the floodgates to intentional defaults and bankruptcies, but that problem pales in comparison to the inability of graduates to pay their loans back in a reasonable amount of time, the inflationary nature of student loan aid on university tuition and the havoc student loans play on peoples' credit scores. The ability to discharge a student loan based on a strict criteria of conditions and the willingness of the loan recipients to abide by probationary conditions set during the discharge period, with the understanding that future options may be somewhat limited for the next few years could go a long way towards getting people from under that debt. Either that or the U.S. finally wises up and makes secondary and continuing education completely state-funded and free for all Americans. I doubt that latter option will ever make it on any legislative agenda during this century.

I could blog about how John Boner Beaner Boehner punked the President into moving back his jobs speech a day or so, or how he got snubbed by 5 4 NASCAR drivers after extending invitations to a White House reception.* Or I could spend an entire post wondering if Obama's cool, calm, conciliatory demeanor is sending all the wrong signals. Or perhaps how the resident blowhards are calling on his resignation yet again and how people he thought would be on his side are calling him a "straight bitch."

Nah, that's not interesting to me. At least not right now. Hard to make a blog post about things you're rather dispassionate about. Instead, let's talk about how people are dealing with the current, fucked-up state of the U.S. economy:

On June 25, 2010, Frederick Deare punched out for the last time from his job driving a forklift at the Old London factory in the Bronx. That summer, everyone at the plant was being laid off: the oven operators, the assembly-line packers, the forklift drivers, the sanitation workers. Total jobs lost: 228. Old London, the snack manufacturer that invented the Cheez Doodle, was moving its operations to North Carolina. At 53, Mr. Deare, known as Freddy or Teddy Bear to his co-workers, would have to find a new job...

...he got an interview, and the supervisor he met with sounded optimistic about his chances of being hired. But there was no formal offer. Day after day went by. For three weeks the wait stretched on. This time, however, he got the job. And it was a union job, with benefits. He started on April 11 — 290 days after Old London laid him off.

“You’re speaking to a happy man,” he said after his first day. “I am in my glory. I mean, today was wonderful.” 

There was only one downside: The work paid $10 an hour, 40 percent less than he had made at Old London. After taxes, his paycheck was even less than the unemployment benefits he had been collecting. But he tried not to dwell on this. “I don’t let it bother me that I’m getting less, because of the simple fact I have something, and a lot of people have nothing,” he said. “You have to crawl before you can walk.” Four and a half months later, he is still on the job.

This is the new reality ordinary people are dealing with - being "downsized" or "right-sized" out of a decent-paying job and being left to stare into the economic abyss, and if you do manage to find other employment, it's for a fraction of the money you were paid at your old job for doing twice or three times the work, with no health care benefits. A lot of people with masters degrees and doctorates working service industry gigs. And a lot of people who are "independent contractors" or "temporary workers." Lots and lots of people trying to figure out how to survive in the shadow of record profits and record billionaire net worth.

People are figuring out new ways of surviving:

According to Workamper.com, a workamper is “an adventurous individual who has chosen a wonderful lifestyle that combines ANY kind of part-time or full-time work with RV camping. If you work as an employee, operate a business, or donate your time as a volunteer, AND you sleep in an RV (or on-site housing), you are a Workamper. Workampers generally receive compensation in the form of a free campsite, usually with free utilities (electricity, water, and sewer hookups) and additional wages.”

Calling it a “wonderful lifestyle” seems a bit over the top for some workampers. After communicating with Suzann for more than six months and observing the Ellingsworth’s ups and frequent downs, it’s obvious that workamping is not all fun and games, at least for those who hit the road in need of a job to survive.

Most workamper jobs are of the minimum-wage variety. Workampers generally don’t receive unemployment insurance benefits, severance pay or any warning that a job is about to end. Workampers face many of the same job insecurity issues as the millions of Americans who have been downsized due to job outsourcing, financial mismanagement and slow consumer demand for products and services, except workampers are purposely more nimble and have been conditioned to pack up and move to where the jobs are. “We have to be mobile to land a job,” said Suzann. Those who become jobless and live in traditional stationary homes aren’t usually able to move to another city on a moment’s notice.

Since workamping is a nomadic lifestyle, it’s difficult to collect a headcount. Steve Anderson, president of Workamper.com, said the most recent workamper survey is from KOA, but it is dated: “Nearly 10 years ago the KOA Corporation gave an estimate that 750,000 were living the workamping lifestyle. Their data was questioned then and at best was an estimated guess. Over the years we have seen our membership remain in the 14,000 range with thousands of others in the dreaming stages of workamping. It is very transitional lifestyle, meaning folks begin and end the lifestyle every day.”

After being "downsized," "right-sized" or laid off from a decent-paying job with health benefits, after spending months winging it on unemployment, odd temporary jobs and family charity, and after all of the bills, debt collection notices and nights of feeding your family from the food bank and dollar store, you finally land a stable job. Except that the job pays damn-near minimum wage and there aren't any health benefits tied to it. But you're thankful, nonetheless - you have to be in a climate where jobs are few and far between.

You're scared you might lose your job again, so you do anything and everything your employers want. Unpaid overtime, non-existent vacation time, zero health benefits and increased production schedules and work loads that border on superhuman. But you do it anyway, because it's either this or you take another long, painful look into the abyss.

Most major corporations are quite happy with this arrangement, if the record profits are any indicator. That's what happens when you can wring out twice the productivity from your workforce while no longer having to invest much money in them.


*"Scheduling conflicts?" Usually when the President of the United States invites you over for dinner and a photo op, all of your prior engagements fly out the fucking window. It's the ultimate doctor's excuse -- "Sorry boss, can't come into work today - the President's called me over for a few drinks. *hands boss official embossed White House invite*"


**And yes, I know most people have varying definitions of what "comfort" is, but let's not nit-pick over that for now.

As it turns out, the GOP aren't all that adverse to raising taxes, after all. Even the Tea Party's patron saint of American conservative governance, St. Reagan the Gipper, often raised taxes despite allaying his fellow conservatives' concerns of being swept up in the demonic liberal tax-and-spend waves. Just not on the top 1% of earners in this nation. That remains sacrosanct as far as the GOP is concerned.

Instead, it will be the middle class and working class that ends up shouldering the tax burdens of this nation.

America’s presumably anti-tax party wants to raise your taxes. Come January, the Republicans plan to raise the taxes of anyone who earns $50,000 a year by $1,000, and anyone who makes $100,000 by $2,000. 

Their tax hike doesn’t apply to income from investments. It doesn’t apply to any wage income in excess of $106,800 a year. It’s the payroll tax that they want to raise — to 6.2 percent from 4.2 percent of your paycheck, a level established for one year in December’s budget deal at Democrats’ insistence. Unlike the capital gains tax, or the low tax rates for the rich included in the Bush tax cuts, or the carried interest tax for hedge fund operators (which is just 15 percent), the payroll tax chiefly hits the middle class and the working poor.

While President Obama has made clear that he supports extending the lower 4.2 percent payroll tax rate for another year, to keep the economy from contracting further, congressional Republicans have made their opposition equally clear. “I don’t think that’s a good idea,” said Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. Camp complained that it would push the deficit higher. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the man who’d have us scrap Medicare, concurred. “It would simply exacerbate our debt problems,” he said on Fox News Sunday this month.

History is a literal "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" guide when it comes to things that any normal human being should see coming, but usually don't until is well too late. People may read about history, but they don't really learn anything from it unless it happens to be something immediately tangible they can get out of it like financial gain, and even then they end up dooming themselves thanks to the inevitable greed that comes over them. In short, people are forever stuck in the remedial classes, repeating history because they slept through it and failed hard when it came time for the test.

The socioeconomic elite, mainly the wealthy individuals and families who spend their time in the pursuit of money and power whenever they're not pursuing leisure, always allow greed to overcome their best judgment and forget (or don't care) how continuous hording of 99% of the monetary and physical resources, combined with continuous extortion of that last 1% from the 98% who are flat broke always results in said people rebelling against the elite in the worst ways possible. Sometimes the elite manage to escape to various boltholes prepared for such a purpose. Sometimes they earn a spot on the guillotine or gallows. At any rate, desperate people who are eating shit sandwiches while seeing the elites live high on the hog will snap and get their piece of the action by all means at their disposal.

Which brings me to this fellow by the name of Robert Rector, a gentleman in the loose sense of the word who believes that America's poor are living to high on the hog themselves to be technically poor. Granted, America's sky-high standard of living allows our poor to have more material things than poor people in other nations. Actually, that's the point Rector tries to make.

The overwhelming majority of the public do not regard a family living in these conditions as poor. For example, a poll conducted in June 2009 asked a nationally representative sample of the public whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “A family in the U.S. that has a decent, un-crowded house or apartment to live in, ample food to eat, access to medical care, a car, cable television, air conditioning and a microwave at home should not be considered poor.”[42] 

A full 80 percent of Republicans and 77 percent of Democrats agreed that a family living in those living conditions should not be considered poor.

Cutting out those "entitlements" will take care of the whole "lazy minority" problem that some Americans are still fascinated with. No more of those black "Welfare queens" loading lobster and filet Mignon purchased with state-issued EBT cards into their Cadillac Escalades on 26-inch wheels. Without those "entitlements," they have to go back into the factories and fields, taking up the work their "illegal immigrant" counterparts left behind thanks to those new state-issued immigration laws, as God apparently intended for them and theirs.
Zero corporate taxes, near zero capital gains taxes, an extremely low top marginal tax rate and a number of different loopholes that promote zero taxation. Apparently this is the ideal condition for corporations and the extremely wealthy. Without any "noblesse oblige" to worry about, since the average American is fending for themselves in accordance to the "rugged individual" fantasy, the wealthy are left only with the task of aggrandizing themselves with ever increasing amounts of wealth, something akin to Uncle Scrooge swimming around in a pile of gold coins in his vault. Except that ol' Scrooge has twelve of those vaults scattered around the globe, with plans on a thirteenth vault. The vaults themselves are surrounded 24/7 with armed security, and the compound itself is surrounded by ordinary citizens in incredible poverty, most whom have come to understand that said poverty is merely a failure in personal character and that it's their own fault they're in poverty in the first place.

The nation is run on tax revenue, and it will come from somewhere if this nation plans on existing in its current form. With a 0% corporate tax, it may be the middle and working classes that once again have to bear the load of fiscally holding this nation up.

Tall boots may have a tab, loop or handle at the top known as a bootstrap, allowing one to use fingers or a tool to provide greater force in pulling the boots on. The saying "to pull yourself up by your bootstraps" was already in use during the 19th century as an example of an impossible task. Bootstrap as a metaphor, meaning to better oneself by one's own unaided efforts, was in use in 1922. This metaphor spawned additional metaphors for a series of self-sustaining processes that proceed without external help. (Wikipedia)